Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2695)	3/25/2003 10:01:19 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Was there another white flag ambush last night?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2695)	3/25/2003 10:06:02 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Nothing the FT says nullifies the eyewitness testimony of that reporter on the ground, even if he works for Podunk Times. That reporter on the ground is "embedded" (read: sees what US army wants him to see) and writes for a fringe paper (Ottawa something). Meanwhile, the article I posted is from Financial Times, which, believe it or not, IS widely considered a VERY good source of information. So why exactly is your reason to ignore the FT article, with the "eyewitness testimonies" and all? No, it does not "nullify", but does render comparatively less credible the claims of this "embedded" reporter. It is a war. There are and will be many conflicting reports. I suggest you start choosing your sources of information according to credibility regardless of what they say and then form your convictions, rather than choose articles that support what you believe and use them to reinforce your beliefs. Which might be wrong.